Books about how women work

Is there a name for the type of dress that she's wearing? It makes my dick hard.

Peter Pan collar dress

>to friendly
On Women is one section of P&P, you fucking pseud. Weininger's shit is kinder to women in that he includes a lower class than women which is Jews of course, because he is one. If you need to be on that scale to feel superior, I'm assuming you're a kike. At least go gay like actual supermales, The Greeks, and read Plato if you want to bring up your micropenis-in-the-current-year issues.

>dearcoquette.com/
Holy shit that's a stupid blog.

>take the manchild pill

Arthur Schopenhauer's "On Women".
Immanuel Kant's "Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime".

Schopenhauer & Tolstoy my ass, nancy boys.
Read this,OP:

ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/els/esrcls/displfin.pdf

Well, I'm not really looking about stuff like this; sure, the things written here are true, but what I'm looking for is a book that discusses how women - in the most prominent societies, of course - behave more specifically: mannerisms and such; a book that actually helps me with writing and creating believable women characters. This is just obvious and no help at all, unless you're suggesting that I derive and extrapolate modern women behavior from an array of evolutionary quirks that have been going on for quite a few years now; in which case, come on mang...

I'm not even sure if there's a book like that specifically, but hey, that's why I'm asking.

you can read my diary senpai if you wanna know lol

Just listen to this mate:

youtube.com/watch?v=UXzx--YefD8

2 book recs from a femanon

>Gifts From the Sea -Anne Morrow Lindberg
>Tehanu - Ursula K leGuin

>Tehanu
Isn't that a book from a series? Why that one in specific?

Well, it is told from the point of view of a woman, (the other books aren't), and there is a view from "inside her head" so to speak, of men, and children, and power, and many other things: with love, not harsh judgement.

And it's very plain, and mundane, like many women's lives...

Here is a quote that is an example of what I mean:

"Will you be about the house? she asked him, across some distance. Therru's asleep. I want to walk a little.

Yes. Go on, he said, and she went on, pondering the indifference of a man towards the exigencies that ruled a woman: that someone must be not far from a sleeping child, that one's freedom meant another's unfreedom, unless some ever-changing, moving balance were reached, like the balance of a body moving forward, as she did now, on two legs, first one then the other, in the practice of that remarkable art, walking. . . ."

Well a book "written" by a female would help.
Try "The dance of anger: a woman's guide to changing the patterns of intimate relationships" by Lerner, Harriet Goldhor. You will definitely get an inside look at what women endure, why they are the way they are.

...

>"written"
Why "written"?

They don't! Lol!

Joke: books to understand how woman work
Woke: books to understand how to make woman start working the way they need to in order for you to be able to understand how they work

Divinely Woke: not giving a shit how women work

I don't understand this meme that women are really complex things.

There's just a lot of particulate bullshit because of different underlying mental imperatives.

That and they lie a lot.

Once a day I like to go on Veeky Forums and say something outrageous just for kicks, here is today's post:

Women are just like any other human being, they are different and each have their own likes and dislikes, that also applies to male preferences! Some girls like chads, some like quieter dudes, but all in all humans look for other interesting humans to share their lives with. They want to be part of your interesting life the same way you should want to be part of theirs. They also want someone that cares for their needs just like you want someone to care about you, so that being said, there is no trick to get someone to love you. You can even be good at tricking them into thinking you're cool for the night but not for a life time.

Crazy right? I'm such a troll.

>reading books about women written by women
you would get the twisted image of their rationalising about their irrational behaviour

stop it
you make my peepee hard

why are all gets on Veeky Forums wasted

(Checked)

>interesting life

Story of O

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley's_Lover

I like Weininger...

wow

Humans lie a lot.

No because how women work is explained in several sentences.

They are vain, flighty creatures who's only interests will coincide with whatever man or group of men they are trying to attract at any given time (this applies to politics, hobbies, etc). Every time they open their mouths they lie.

The end.

Women don't work.

Women don't exist.

Kys faggot

my penis and me are with you

Replies like these are about the most uninteresting unhelpful thing ever, so please, just shut up next time instead of trying to sound like such a kool grown up mature keed. I'm not trying to get a fucking girlfriend, I'm trying to write believable female characters, and no matter how much you shout "MUH EQUALITY!!!" that won't change the fact that women DO behave differently from men. No, I'm not saying they all behave the same nor am I wishing to imply they are somehow more complex or diverse than men, I'm saying that I want to focus on women and on behavioral patterns associated with them, faggots.

Seriously dude, Vilar's a female so all the female roleplayers in this list don't read.

Don't listen to the redpillers who read Schop and Nietzsche the same way that a SJW would; it's a sign your brain is broken by propaganda if you think Schop and Nietz weren't soft on women, whichever extreme you take.

Amazing.

I don't know if I've ever read a believable female character written by a man, but my 2 cents is
>avoid the Madonna/ whore thing
There is more to being a woman than being a perfect saintly mother or a slut.

...

>They don't get it yet.
Shit, am I getting fucking rused right now?

...

Weininger's Sex and Character is actually a really good book on how women work. Henids are an amazing theory.

All thought comes down to conceptual clarity and the possibility of chaining together discursive and abstract thought. Men are capable of structural abstraction in their thought, so they can easily delimit, and then keep structurally separate, things like principles and the urges or feelings which conflict with them. Men easily seek after what is "real."

Male thought easily passes from having something demonstrated to it, like the principle of free speech for example, to an intuitive understanding of that principle's boundaries. Men can quickly understand and contrast systems of political ideals or ethical maxims. The difficulty for men is in seeing what various maxims and ideals adumbrate, and adjusting the structure of their concepts and reasoning to try to achieve an ideal outcome.

Women's conceptual thinking is murky, temporary, and shot-through with their feelings. They are incapable of permanent ontology. They don't think in abstractions, in perennial principles, and they don't understand what it means for a value or virtue to be "True" or "Real" or "Objective" outside of themselves. Their consciousness even of the world around and outside of them is only differentiated by degree in its subjectivity and objectivity. Everything is an extension of how they feel about it in the moment.

They can never escape the tyranny of the moment, or their feelings, so at any given time all of the principles and values they superficially appear to hold are being compared with how they FEEL about the implications of those principles and values. It's not that they don't care about "real" things, it's that their concepts are too hazy and mushy to make an objective realm of discourse hang together and stay together.

>I'm trying to write believable female characters
well, I'm not a woman, but P.K.Dick always wrote very believable characters IMO. So perhaps you can start with him

man, how the fuck can you analyze such a thing? If you are a man, then you're screwed from the beginning. If you are a woman you still lack the experience on being a man, thus you cannot compare, thus it's pretty hard to analyze. Especially since human psychology is basically lying to oneself in order to decieve the others

Oh, user, Women don't work.

Wait, did you mean "how do they function"?

Women don't function

/thread

I think the word you're looking for is paedophile.

>men do this too but i'm too fucking deluded to wake the fuck up

checked, try harder next time

...

i mean to be fair she's probably gonna 'settle down' with an ex-chad who also spent his youth fucking chicks left & right but now wants to pass on the family name and raise a new generation of chads.

Basically the crucial difference is that woman TEND towards being social, self-preserving animals while men TEND towards being logical, gambling animals.

In other words the average grill is going to be concerned with the little things like whether there is enough food in the fridge, that everyone around her is happy, that her friends like her and think she's useful to them, etc.

Meanwhile the average boy will tend to constantly try to make the big picture better like by trying to get better paid, have constant small competitions with their friends, trying out and mastering new things, etc.

Of course you do get the occasional boy that is just like the average grill and the occasional girl that is just like the average boy. Most people are a mix of typically male and female traits, usually having more traits that are typical for their sex than the other, but not always.

You should be able to follow most stereotypes back to the above general distinction. For example reading is something that's typically a lot more common with women. It's an unassuming, calm activity and you sort of just sit there and listen to another person communicating to you for a long time for its own sake. But then you have literature that is more typical of male preferences, like Thomas Pynchon, where there is little heart-to-heart. Instead it's like this huge, intricate puzzle to struggle against and understand.

...

i want to fuck that rabbit

ERECTION CHECKED

That is clearly not a rabbit.

You are a blind fool.

Can't believe nobody mentioned Schopenhauer's "On Women" yet

Read Margaret Atwood. The Maddadam trilogy will get you some insight. First book is mostly about two men, the second about two women, and the third is from a woman's perspective but also includes the stories of men.

Atwood has great skill in developing consistent fleshed out characters. Also Toby. I love that character so damn much. I dare you not to fall in love with her.

Youre a good guy user.
Good guy.

the sexual life of catherine m

>things like principles and the urges or feelings which conflict with them
plenty of men blew their careers because of pussy

connoisseur

fuck off

This. These threads just turn into shit /r9k/ circlejerks.

Like, you have an unironic post saying to read fucking Elliot Rodgers manifesto for an accurate image of how women work. A severely mentally ill man who had huge issues with interpreting social situations accurately and had no real relationships with any women, even of a platonic nature was put down as an actual source.

To OP though, you're not going to get an accurate image of an entire gender from a book. Women aren't clones of another, and generally speaking, the only thing you can guarantee they all have in common is some biological features. If you try to write a whole gender as a certain type of person, it's going to come across as just full of cliches and stereotypes. You'd be better served looking for examples of that particular character style, and seeing how other authors represent that.

You wouldn't go "Hmm, how can I see how men work in stories?", would you? Because there's so many different types of male character that you can't merge them all together into a single group. Just write an interesting character, have the gender be something that exists only as an outward feature for other characters to react to, or for impacting the role they fill in the story in ways. Doesn't matter if it has more "masculine" features or whatever, if it's well written, that'll work fine.

/thread

>women
>work

nah

>some girls like chads
>some like quieter chads

wow really made me think

also
>women
>interesting life

lmao

Singularity woke: Understanding how women work but not giving a shit anyways

>I'm trying to write believable female characters
youtube.com/watch?v=pBz0BTb83H8

>You wouldn't go "Hmm, how can I see how men work in stories?", would you?
So your reasoning for not discussing either is that you don't want to think about either and therefore neither must exist?

There's reams of shit on what it is to be a man, and how they work in stories. The whole idea of hubris revolves around "when a man is not a man" and is arguably how Attica fell to Macedonia. Even female authors get in on this shit, with Shelley writing the modern Prometheus. I bet you shit your pants at the opportunity to point out the doctor is the monster whenever anyone mentions that though in any proximity to your sophomoric brain. You're as bad as the idiot who thinks Rodgers spilling ice tea on women is a good way to write women in general.

No? That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that you wouldn't reduce all male characters to a single archetype or group of chracteristics, and shouldn't do that for female characters either, because it creates one sided and boring characters.

You should look at specific characteristics you want to portray, and how other authors have portrayed those.

Your entire second paragraph is just completely irrelevant to what I'm saying, so I'm not going to bother replying to it. Re-read what I wrote, don't just get irrationally angry over it.

> I'm saying that you wouldn't reduce all male characters to a single archetype or group of chracteristics
PROTIP: A male and female can share the same base type of characteristics, but how they are expressed differs because of sexual dimorphism.

Nobody is implying that all women act as a single, uniform archetype, just that there is a feminine analogue for every male character trait and not recognizing this leads to Mary Sue characters and bad writing.

Yeah, his book didn't sell, so he an heroed himself.

Only bested by he who hung himself from a stack of unselled books.

Can a woman really "write"

Ccccccccome on

peepee, i'm proud of you

this one can

You don't need a book.

A trick I learned when I was in prison was to think of it as follows. Women basically work like an inside out penis.. See, D-Cayed from the rolling 60s put it like this.

"a woman actually has nuts. didn't know that did you fruity ass college boy. But see their nuts are pushed up inside them when their bodies are deciding what to do with the nuts gene.

"See every baby ever made has the nuts gene when they are coming up inside the girl. But the boy babies get the nut gene expressed like I do.

"And shit's not the fucking half of it. Girls got the dick gene too. Bet you didn't know that either faggot, hunh? Yeah but their dick gene actualy gets expressed as the clit meat. That little thing of skin you now what I'm saying. Well that shit's nothign but a dick that got did a little different.

"Know I know what yoru dumb ass is thinking--the guts of the cunt is a dick-shaft gene turned inside out. Ha, get this. That shit actually comes from the gene that tells the body to put some tumes coming out of the nut sack. The whole dick gene in the girl is all in the clit no matter how small.

"Fucked up stuff right. Haha, nature is some magic for sure."

D-cayed was a weird guy, but smart. He used to make his cellmate sit naked on the toilet when ever they were in the cel together. Like some sort of dominance thing I guess.

That's him in the pic there.

What you're saying is retarded because people clearly do go "Hmmm, how can I see how men work in stories?" since pretty much the dawn of literature. In fact, people have been going "Hmmm, how can I see how women work in stories?" too for millennia. You just want to assume neither of those things happen because your brain would explode if you had to question your assumptions and actually read something.

Some user mentioned Aristophanes way at the top. The half of his work which wasn't criticising Socrates or politics is criticism of Euripides not writing women well according to every whore he interviewed. Criticisms of how to write men are equally as basic to canon. You just want to live in a fairy land where neither of those things happen but you can talk about Rodgers in the negative all day, because you're so fucking far below basic you don't even know what basic is. You are literally as bad as the guy who can only discuss Rodgers because you _are_ someone who can only discuss Rodgers.

>My French teacher banged a male student during detention
>English teacher had a lesbian affair with one of her students
>Geography Teacher and English Teacher secretly banging. Said Geography also allowed several students to spank her during a lesson (And I'm jealous, honestly. She was a smoking hot redhead with a killer ass.)
>Different Geography and English Teacher had an affair, Geography Teachers son found out and threw a brick at his car whilst he was driving.

But it doesn't? There's no characteristics unique to women, or to men, and you can't write like there are.

And come on, you're seriously claiming no-one said women are a single archetype? Should I quote posts that do exactly that for you?

>But it doesn't? There's no characteristics unique to women, or to men, and you can't write like there are.
they both love sex, but for different reasons

Women are only concerned with association and appearance. And they love contradictions because it filters out the smart people who make rules and verify actions without valuing her words at all. Her tactic leaves behind only weak-willed drama prone people. You must feign slight weakness around her.

That's all you need to know. Now if you are concerned with accuracy you need to be able to discern who is also concerned with accuracy rather than just who is appearing to be concerned with accuracy. Since women are also emulators of status and can be occasionally masculine they claim to be equal.

In terms of "equality" women demand the results of the effect rather than acquire the skills that produce an effect consistently. They collectively don't want to inspire the unnatural ability in men to control women's affection so they misdirect with vagueness.

The Weininger guy would probably point out to you it's a spectrum that Weininger uses, and women aren't on either end in it. The rest are obvious trolls designed to take in pearl clutchers' replies. You must be a pretty weak troll if you need to quote those to garner a reply. Have a (You)

And what would that be? I'd say both like sex because it feels good.

I'm talking about his quotes, in which he says "they are this", "they are incapable of that".

You can't just dismiss the rest as "obvious trolls" when we have an entire board dedicated to that sort of shit.

Are you really this new? You're either definitely trolling, or, more probably, dumb and new.

If you're dumb and new, I'd suggest going to a board where what other anons do is the subject, rather than literature, since you seem incapable of discussing literature or getting over that user is not all one person.

I'll wait for you to discuss a book on topic in more depth than you have discussed Elliot Rodgers, but you've pretty much demonstrated that you can't.

What book should I be discussing? I gave my opinion that you can't get an idea of how to write a character if you take inspiration from just a character with the same gender, and how I think /r9k/ posters are retarded.

What else should I have added to that to reach your standards, o wise king of Veeky Forums?

>this much butthurt
Well, you could have discussed Weininger instead of the user you'd prefer to discuss. You could have discussed the thousands of years of literary theory you decided mustn't exist because you haven't read it. You could have discussed the Greeks. Instead you chose to show off your ignorance and are whining like a baby that someone corrected you and tried to steer you towards books. Probably the best you can do now is walk away and pretend this never happened so your ego doesn't find itself in the awkward position of having to read books and admit your mistakes.

I would advise reading how Veeky Forums works though if you don't want to bump threads with your retarded opinions like a newb and lurking moar. But that's just basic etiquette you'll need on /b/ where you should go with your random and unfounded theories if that really is more important to you as a hobby than reading. All your opinions do involve reading more if you don't want people to point and laugh at your ignorance, even on /b/ though.

>All you opinions
*options

bamp